The reason Americans have turned against health-care reform, after electing President Obama in part for promising it, is simple: Despite protestations to the contrary, Americans don't like change. You wouldn't know it, of course, if you listen to politicians in high-pander mode, or to talk radio hosts of the right or TV pundits of the left. Or, for that matter, if you listened to the president of the United States. You would think that while we might disagree about what kind of change we want, Americans are in total agreement that the current situation is intolerable in all areas and that change -- big, immediate change -- is essential. Americans do agree about this -- in the abstract. But as soon as it seems that change might actually happen -- as soon as we leave the abstract for the particular -- we panic. We suddenly develop nostalgia for the comforts of the status quo. Sure, we want change -- as long as everything can stay just as it is.

Yes, of course, the opposition party has gotten away with some grotesque misrepresentations. But that will always be true as you move from the abstract to the particular. There will always be a Betsy McCaughey sharpening her pencils and cackling as she underlines promising sub-clauses. And she will always find something. Obama thought he could avoid this by not supplying the document. He thought -- hell, we all thought -- that Hillary Clinton's big mistake in the 1990s was too much detail. Obama said he would leave all that up to Congress. But at some point, you've got to show your hand. All Obama seems to have achieved in the end was a shift in timing -- and not an advantageous one. Instead of being in trouble almost from the beginning, his reform remained popular until it was time for Congress to vote.

The similarities to the last time we tried health-care reform are striking. Bill Clinton had campaigned on a call for change in general and health-care reform in particular. Rising costs and increasing numbers of uninsured made the system seem intolerable. There were deep disagreements about what change was needed, but whether change was needed appeared beyond dispute. Afraid of being tagged the party that prevented change, Republicans were about to give up and compromise. Then GOP apparatchik extraordinaire Bill Kristol blew the whistle. He said, better to be thought of as against all change than to be tarred as in favor of any particular change. It seemed like a lunatic idea at first, but Kristol turned out to be right -- politically. He was wrong about the actual substance of the issue. As a result, in the 14 years since, millions more are uninsured, and here we are trying reform again. I'd like to think that if it goes down this time -- when even the insurance companies are on board, promising to eliminate their odious policies about preexisting conditions -- Republicans will pay for having killed it, if indeed they do kill it. But they didn't pay the last time.

All this is similar to those polls about attitudes toward Congress that show that most people find Congress absolutely loathsome, yet are extremely fond of their own representative. Once again it's the difference between the abstract and the particular. Congress in the abstract is greedy, stupid and corrupt. It will do anything to get reelected. Your own representative, though, is Congress in the particular. And he or she is not so bad, even though he or she actually does get reelected.

Why does this happen? Some people (including me) say the voters are immature. Politicians (and those talk radio fellows again) are always telling them that they are wise and those folks in Washington are fools. Pollsters seek and validate their opinions on subjects they haven't bothered to learn anything about. Politicians drown them in benefits with no thought of how the bills will be paid. No wonder that citizens turn out like spoiled children. But "immature" is a label, not an explanation. It's just a guess, but my own suspicion is that the raucous town hall meetings that blindsided pols and press alike reflect the voters' true feelings -- misinformed, perhaps, but sincere -- and their previous passionate demands for what they now passionately oppose -- in a word, "change" -- were empty ritual. Discontent verging on anger is almost the price of admission to our political culture these days. You're nobody if you're not furious at Congress and/or the media and/or your health care and/or the president. To believe in your country's institutions is virtually unpatriotic.

This is only as long as your discontent can remain abstract, of course. When you are asked to approve of even moderate but genuine change, the status quo starts to look pretty good.

Taco John

08-28-2009, 07:05 PM

I actually don't believe that the Republicans have grotesquely misrepresented anything. I absolutely believe that rationing of health care is a logical effect of this plan.

BucEyedPea

08-28-2009, 07:12 PM

I actually don't believe that the Republicans have grotesquely misrepresented anything. I absolutely believe that rationing of health care is a logical effect of this plan.

I agree.

Friendo

08-28-2009, 07:15 PM

we have become Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard

KILLER_CLOWN

08-28-2009, 07:16 PM

Man we wanted death panels and now that they're here we...oh wait i don't recall us ever wishing for that change.

BucEyedPea

08-28-2009, 07:18 PM

Man we wanted death panels and now that they're here we...oh wait i don't recall us ever wishing for that change.

The whole plan is a death panel. :evil:

Direckshun

08-28-2009, 07:21 PM

I actually don't believe that the Republicans have grotesquely misrepresented anything. I absolutely believe that rationing of health care is a logical effect of this plan.

I agree.

Unlike our private insurance plans now.

OH WAI

BucEyedPea

08-28-2009, 07:23 PM

Unlike our private insurance plans now.

OH WAI

There you guys go again with the Newspeak. That's not rationing.

And since govt's first job is to protect life, then they're not fulfilling their real role.

BucEyedPea

08-28-2009, 07:25 PM

.
When private insurance denies care, it is not rationing. If it's not covered under the plan that you bought then they never agreed to give it to you. Using price to allocate product,is allocated to those willing to pay the most. Rationing is usually doled out by some authority like a govt during periods of short supply.

I love the Newspeak of the left. Propaganda by redefinition of words.

KC Dan

08-28-2009, 07:35 PM

I really don't care what anyone on either side of this say. I want it to just die a horrible, gruesome death. It is a bad bill, non-sensical novel or encyclopedia of trash. Just dump it and start over by addressing the rising costs, portability and waste.

chiefzilla1501

08-28-2009, 07:58 PM

This is the best pieces I've read so far:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/27/avlon.obama.independents/index.html?iref=newssearch

By John Avlon
Special to CNN

Editor's note: John Avlon is the author of "Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics" and writes a weekly column for The Daily Beast. Previously, he was chief speechwriter for New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and was a columnist and associate editor for The New York Sun.

John Avlon says President Obama is losing his hold on the crucial independent bloc of voters.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Over the course of this summer, President Obama's approval ratings have plummeted among independent voters -- the largest and fastest-growing segment of the American electorate.

In May, 66 percent of independents approved of Obama's job performance, according to the Gallup Poll.

By August, Gallup showed the president was supported by 49 percent of independents, a collapse during the health care debate that reflects independents' dislike of deficit spending, the growth of big government and one-party control of Washington.

It's a particular problem for Obama because post-honeymoon perceptions are hardening in ways that are counter to his core campaign promise to bridge partisan divides.

Obama introduced himself to the American people by saying, "There are no red states; there are no blue states; there is only the United States of America."

He won virtually every swing state in 2008 as well as 60 percent of centrists, won independents by an 8-point spread, and even won 20 percent of self-described conservatives. But right now he is presiding over a period of increased partisan polarization, with nearly 90 percent of Democrats supporting his efforts and 5 percent of Republicans doing so.

Independents hold the balance of power in American politics. Their ranks have rocketed during the Obama presidency as the two parties have become more polarized, hitting an unprecedented 41 percent of the electorate in July, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll. At the same time, identification with both Democrats and Republicans has declined.

Don't Miss
Commentary: Liberals' passion for public option
Commentary: What LBJ would do
In Depth: Commentaries
All this is evidence that Obama's election did not represent a liberal ideological mandate, as House Democrats and their partisan cheerleaders might wish. More than 70 percent of independents now disapprove of Congress.

But it also shows that rejection of the Republican brand has only accelerated since the conservative caricatures of Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin -- and the town hall protesters -- became the most prominent public faces of their party.

Independents are nonideological problem-solvers. They are sick of Washington's harsh and cynical hyper-partisanship, but they do not have a split-the-difference approach to politics.

Independent voters are decidedly closer to Republicans when it comes to economic issues and closer to Democrats when it comes to social issues.

To put it another way, they are fiscally conservative but socially progressive with a strong libertarian streak. And it's on fiscal issues that independents are putting Obama on notice.

Obama has consistently spoken about the need to return to fiscal responsibility but he's presided over an unprecedented growth in government spending -- from bailouts to the stimulus bill. There is a gap between his rhetoric and his record - and that's contributing to the fact that only 35 percent of independents support his efforts on health care to date.

That's why liberals' increasingly strident insistence that Obama abandon bipartisan outreach is terrible advice for the president and the nation. In a burst of triumphalism, they seem to be echoing former House Majority Leader Dick Armey's advice to Republicans in the past -- "bipartisanship is another name for date rape" -- despite the fact that it is exactly this hyper-partisan, play-to-the-base approach to politics that caused independent voters to abandon President Bush.

Health care reform is one of the most demonstrably difficult issues in American politics. It has been attempted by presidents since Harry Truman, and in each case a combination of fear-mongering from the right and all-or-nothing insistence from the left has derailed any hope of real progress.

In contrast, every major successful social reform -- from Social Security to Medicare to welfare reform -- has earned broad bipartisan support. For health care to pass in a durable form it must build on this tradition. Pushing through a party-line vote will backfire badly.

To regain his footing with independents, Obama needs to depolarize the debate over health care reform. He can do so by endorsing a bipartisan Senate bill that offers increased competition and coverage through nonprofit co-ops rather than the $500 billion to $1 trillion public option.

This will not be a retreat but real leadership toward uniting the country. Obama also needs to start addressing out-of-control costs by pursuing promised entitlement reforms for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in the name of generational responsibility. It would be a bipartisan effort based on fiscal responsibility -- and a courageous bit of political judo that would help him close the growing credibility gap with independents.

Washington's professional partisans have an interest in perpetuating play-to-the-base politics. They view the inspirational post-partisanship of Obama's 2008 campaign as a necessary ploy that should be abandoned once entering Washington.

What they don't appreciate is that for his independent supporters, the hope and change that Obama represented was a break from the hyper-polarized politics of the past. It's not too late for the president to regain this lost ground, but it is getting later than some in the White House might like to think.

The culture of hyper-partisanship persists, but a leader's responsibility is to change a culture. This will require reinforcing Obama's strained centrist credentials -- a clear commitment to moving our nation not left or right, but forward.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John P. Avlon.

BucEyedPea

08-28-2009, 08:17 PM

I really don't care what anyone on either side of this say. I want it to just die a horrible, gruesome death. It is a bad bill, non-sensical novel or encyclopedia of trash. Just dump it and start over by addressing the rising costs, portability and waste.

Pleeeeeeeaaaasssssee, Make it STOP!!!!!

orange

08-28-2009, 08:30 PM

This is the best pieces I've read so far:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/27/avlon.obama.independents/index.html?iref=newssearch

By John Avlon
Special to CNN
...
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John P. Avlon.

The huge majorities the Democrats won in the House, Senate, and Presidential races are not evidence that America wants more liberalism - so says Rudy Giuliani's speechwriter and Deputy Campaign Policy Director.

Why am I not buying that?

Taco John

08-28-2009, 08:32 PM

Unlike our private insurance plans now.

Exactly.

Taco John

08-28-2009, 08:35 PM

Republicans will pay for having killed it, if indeed they do kill it.

This article is perplexing. Republicans have no hope of killing this thing. The only thing that will kill this bill is the spinal fortitude of the Democrats. They own whether this thing lives or dies. They could have passed it already if they had the backbone to do it.

headsnap

08-28-2009, 08:48 PM

This article is perplexing. Republicans have no hope of killing this thing.

but that's exactly how the story will go when it happens...

Brock

08-28-2009, 09:07 PM

It's okay to stop pretending Obama had some kind of sweeping mandate. He got elected because he wasn't a republican, period.

KCTitus

08-28-2009, 09:11 PM

A brief summary: "Voters are stupid and dont know what's good for them. Damn that silly paper called the Constitution that gives them the right to vote.

Augh!!! if we only could get around that, we'd have Utopia."

Yep, Kinsley nailed it.

We only need a few more Czars and we'll be home...dont worry 'shun. Soon they'll be done with you.

***SPRAYER

08-28-2009, 09:28 PM

http://www.moonbattery.com/bill-richardson_barack-obama.jpg
HERO OF THE STUPID

BucEyedPea

08-29-2009, 06:48 AM

Exactly.

I can't believe you said that, as an Austrian. It is a different animal when govt rations because it's a restriction of liberty than a mechanism of the market.

ChiTown

08-29-2009, 07:32 AM

It's okay to stop pretending Obama had some kind of sweeping mandate. He got elected because he wasn't a republican, period.

:clap:

BigRedChief

08-29-2009, 08:28 AM

I actually don't believe that the Republicans have grotesquely misrepresented anything. I absolutely believe that rationing of health care is a logical effect of this plan.
Death Panels to kill off Grandma
Public funding of abortions
Provide health care coverage for illegal immigrants.

nah, no misrepresentations occured at all.

patteeu

08-29-2009, 08:29 AM

I actually don't believe that the Republicans have grotesquely misrepresented anything. I absolutely believe that rationing of health care is a logical effect of this plan.

The misconception that Republicans are flourishing on though is that rationing can be avoided by killing Obamacare. The truth is that rationing has to happen and is already happening. It's an unfortunate side effect of having made amazing advances in medicine that put miracle treatments in reach but, at least initially, unaffordable as universal treatments. It's like if we all wanted to take a trip to the moon. Sure we have the technology to get there, but it's so expensive we couldn't possibly afford to send every American on that trip right now. Maybe someday if costs ever come down far enough we will be able to, but not right now.

I think the Republicans are on the side of angels on this because even though rationing has to happen, I sure don't want the government making all the decisions with the danger that some politician or bureaucrat's idea of "fairness" or "diversity" or "utility" will rule the day, not to mention the way the criteria for these decisions will become political footballs. I'm content with a market providing the rationing and the realization that I'm not going to get the same level of advanced treatments that Bill Gates can afford. It gives us all something to work for during our productive years so we can have better care in our personal end of days.

***SPRAYER

08-29-2009, 08:30 AM

Death Panels to kill off Grandma
Public funding of abortions
Provide health care coverage for illegal immigrants.

nah, no misrepresentations occured at all.

So you are saying that these three things are not in HR 3200, and you agree with that, you support that?

patteeu

08-29-2009, 08:39 AM

There you guys go again with the Newspeak. That's not rationing.

And since govt's first job is to protect life, then they're not fulfilling their real role.

It *is* rationing, even if it is to a great degree self-rationing. We buy the plan that we can afford which then limits how much care we will get. Beyond that though, insurance plans don't ever spell out exactly what procedures will be covered under what circumstances. They can't (and even if they could, how many consumers would have the knowledge and ability to anticipate all the repercussions to understand exactly where the lines will be drawn). There are far too many variables to spell it all out in advance. So what they do instead is to write guidelines on what will be covered and then make judgments when the time comes as to whether or not a particular treatment is within their guidelines. It's an inexact process. Sometimes they're too aggressive in their denials, but I think those cases are the exception not the rule.

BigRedChief

08-29-2009, 08:40 AM

The misconception that Republicans are flourishing on though is that rationing can be avoided by killing Obamacare. The truth is that rationing has to happen and is already happening. It's an unfortunate side effect of having made amazing advances in medicine that put miracle treatments in reach but, at least initially, unaffordable as universal treatments. It's like if we all wanted to take a trip to the moon. Sure we have the technology to get there, but it's so expensive we couldn't possibly afford to send every American on that trip right now. Maybe someday if costs ever come down far enough we will be able to, but not right now.

I think the Republicans are on the side of angels on this because even though rationing has to happen, I sure don't want the government making all the decisions with the danger that some politician or bureaucrat's idea of "fairness" or "diversity" or "utility" will rule the day, not to mention the way the criteria for these decisions will become political footballs. I'm content with a market providing the rationing and the realization that I'm not going to get the same level of advanced treatments that Bill Gates can afford. It gives us all something to work for during our productive years so we can have better care in our personal end of days.
Agreed. If you want to look at this as a strictly numbers and cost issue, you are going to have to cut back on the expensive treatments available now because of advancement of technology. Especially at the end of life where you don't get the most bang for your buck.

You can't just take into consideration the balance sheet. There are human lives involved and family that want everything done to prolong Grandma's life for another few months. Who;s going to tell them no? Who has that right? Right now the insurance companies are playing God and deciding who gets what procedure(unless you have up to $100000's of $'s in cash). That's not the best way, imho. It's in their interests to deny, to help improve shareholder profits. Not a good thing.

But, to have the government making life and death decisions for us is even more wrong and a very bad idea.

BigRedChief

08-29-2009, 08:43 AM

So you are saying that these three things are not in HR 3200, and you agree with that, you support that?
Will you please pay attention.....jeeeezzzz again, for the millionth time....

I'm against any plan that involves socialized medicene. I have not read or heard of any helath care plan that I can support.

patteeu

08-29-2009, 08:43 AM

I can't believe you said that, as an Austrian. It is a different animal when govt rations because it's a restriction of liberty than a mechanism of the market.

He didn't agree with Direckshun. He agreed with what Direckshun said sarcastically but he didn't agree with Direckshun's clear sarcasm.

petegz28

08-29-2009, 08:44 AM

The huge majorities the Democrats won in the House, Senate, and Presidential races are not evidence that America wants more liberalism - so says Rudy Giuliani's speechwriter and Deputy Campaign Policy Director.

Why am I not buying that?

Because a lot of Dems are not "liberal"....DUH!

Thus the Blue Dogs not going for this shit.

***SPRAYER

08-29-2009, 08:45 AM

Will you please pay attention.....jeeeezzzz again, for the millionth time....

I'm against any plan that involves socialized medicene. I have not read or heard of any helath care plan that I can support.

Do you think taxpayers should pay for abortion, or illegal aliens healthcare?

BigRedChief

08-29-2009, 08:46 AM

Do you think taxpayers should pay for abortion, or illegal aliens healthcare?
Not a single dime.

patteeu

08-29-2009, 08:53 AM

Agreed. If you want to look at this as a strictly numbers and cost issue, you are going to have to cut back on the expensive treatments available now because of advancement of technology. Especially at the end of life where you don't get the most bang for your buck.

You can't just take into consideration the balance sheet. There are human lives involved and family that want everything done to prolong Grandma's life for another few months. Who;s going to tell them no? Who has that right? Right now the insurance companies are playing God and deciding who gets what procedure(unless you have up to $100000's of $'s in cash). That's not the best way, imho. It's in their interests to deny, to help improve shareholder profits. Not a good thing.

But, to have the government making life and death decisions for us is even more wrong and a very bad idea.

You eventually have to bow to the balance sheet. Money doesn't grow on trees, even when there are human lives involved.

The insurance companies aren't playing God, they're trying to write policies that distinguish between coverable expenses (which can be afforded based on their premium structure and their actuarial calculations) and non-coverable expenses (which can't be afforded). As I described earlier, it's difficult to draw bright lines in advance, particularly since new treatments are always being developed and new information about the effectiveness of older treatments is being obtained.

We're in agreement though that putting the government in charge of this rationing is even worse.

***SPRAYER

08-29-2009, 09:00 AM

Not a single dime.

Serious question--

What is it, or what was it about B.O. that you thought/think he brings to the table that inspired you to vote for him, or that he would be a good president for the United States?

BigRedChief

08-29-2009, 09:20 AM

Serious question--

What is it, or what was it about B.O. that you thought/think he brings to the table that inspired you to vote for him, or that he would be a good president for the United States?
I started a thread on here when I was undecided and asked who I should vote for. Rather long thread. Look it up.

***SPRAYER

08-29-2009, 09:42 AM

I started a thread on here when I was undecided and asked who I should vote for. Rather long thread. Look it up.

I'm not even gonna waste my time. Whatever it says, I'm sure it's all you can do with each passing day to convince yourself that you made a good decision in getting behind this greasy lowlife from Chicago.

Only 3 years, 5 months to go.

RealSNR

08-29-2009, 11:04 AM

The huge majorities the Democrats won in the House, Senate, and Presidential races are not evidence that America wants more liberalism - so says Rudy Giuliani's speechwriter and Deputy Campaign Policy Director.

Why am I not buying that?It's called a pendulum swing. The Republicans became entrenched in power, stuck it all in their ears and danced naked. People don't like that, so they elect the opposition. That's the two-party system. There's no option on the ballot for what Americans ACTUALLY want.

Do you think Americans wanted more neo-con Republicans in 2004? Trust me, they don't want more liberalism.

Jenson71

08-29-2009, 11:15 AM

Man we wanted death panels and now that they're here we...oh wait i don't recall us ever wishing for that change.

There are no death panels.

BigRedChief

08-29-2009, 01:38 PM

I'm not even gonna waste my time. Whatever it says, I'm sure it's all you can do with each passing day to convince yourself that you made a good decision in getting behind this greasy lowlife from Chicago.

Only 3 years, 5 months to go.
I will never, ever regret voting for him. A 72 year old man with a completely incompentant idiot a heartbeat away from being president? No way.

Stewie

08-29-2009, 01:56 PM

I want change! I even have a brown shirt. Damn the logic!

orange

08-29-2009, 03:03 PM

Trust me, they don't want more liberalism.

Sorry, but no matter how trustable you are, I believe people are smart enough to vote for who they actually want.

I'm just funny that way.

BucEyedPea

08-29-2009, 03:06 PM

There are no death panels.

Don't need 'em 'cause the whole bill is a death panel!

BucEyedPea

08-29-2009, 03:07 PM

I want change! I even have a brown shirt. Damn the logic!

I wear jack boots with mine and carry a whip!

petegz28

08-29-2009, 03:11 PM

Sorry, but no matter how trustable you are, I believe people are smart enough to vote for who they actually want.

I'm just funny that way.

Once again, there are people known as "conservatiove democrats".....perhaps you have heard of them?

Saul Good

08-29-2009, 04:40 PM

Sorry, but no matter how trustable you are, I believe people are smart enough to vote for who they actually want.

I'm just funny that way.

If that's the case, why didn't Hillary get more write-ins?

I can guarantee that I didn't want anybody on the top of either major ticket, and those two candidates got about 98% of the votes. If ever there were an election in which the majority of the electorate voted for the lesser of two evils, it was this one.

***SPRAYER

08-29-2009, 04:50 PM

There's no option on the ballot for what Americans ACTUALLY want.

:clap:

***SPRAYER

08-29-2009, 04:53 PM

I will never, ever regret voting for him. A 72 year old man with a completely incompentant idiot a heartbeat away from being president? No way.

So you voted for a completely incompetent idiot who's a heartbeat away from making Joe Biden president.

Great, great logic.

orange

08-29-2009, 05:04 PM

If that's the case, why didn't Hillary get more write-ins?

Because the PUMA's were a boogeyman that existed almost entirely in the media - just like Avlon's "centrist libertarian independents."

Saul Good

08-29-2009, 05:06 PM

Because the PUMA's were a boogeyman that existed almost entirely in the media - just like Avlon's "centrist libertarian independents."

Correct. These people wound up swallowing hard and voting for someone who was not their favorite candidate.

ROYC75

08-29-2009, 10:49 PM

I really don't care what anyone on either side of this say. I want it to just die a horrible, gruesome death. It is a bad bill, non-sensical novel or encyclopedia of trash. Just dump it and start over by addressing the rising costs, portability and waste.

THIS!

ROYC75

08-29-2009, 10:53 PM

I will never, ever regret voting for him. A 72 year old man with a completely incompentant idiot a heartbeat away from being president? No way.

Wouldn't be in financial hock like we are now and it's only going to get worse.
Oh, I forgot, our kids, their kids and their kids need not worry about their income, the government is going to get that too.

Face it, Obo was a bad choice.

J Diddy

08-29-2009, 11:03 PM

Wouldn't be in financial hock like we are now and it's only going to get worse.
Oh, I forgot, our kids, their kids and their kids need not worry about their income, the government is going to get that too.

Face it, Obo was a bad choice.

Financial hock was started by Bush. Let's face it. Our kids were fucked before they even put his name on the ballot.

BucEyedPea

08-30-2009, 05:27 AM

Financial hock was started by Bush. Let's face it. Our kids were ****ed before they even put his name on the ballot.

I'll grant you that.....however, there is no EXCUSE for doing more of the same and making it worse.

patteeu

08-30-2009, 07:11 AM

If that's the case, why didn't Hillary get more write-ins?

I can guarantee that I didn't want anybody on the top of either major ticket, and those two candidates got about 98% of the votes. If ever there were an election in which the majority of the electorate voted for the lesser of two evils, it was this one.

Correction: This was an election where a 52.9% majority of the electorate voted for the GREATER of two evils. ;)

patteeu

08-30-2009, 07:18 AM

Financial hock was started by Bush. Let's face it. Our kids were ****ed before they even put his name on the ballot.

The government has been in debt for decades so Bush didn't start it. Obama, however, has taken deficit spending to entirely new levels. None of his predecessors, including Bush, were in his league of financial irresponsibility.